Change Management – Articles + lectures
Master Business Administration 2020-2021
Shannon Karhof – Grade 8.8
Table of contents
Session 1 – Introduction to Organizational Change and Change Management .....................................2
Article 1: Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. Asingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan (Chapter 1: Managing change: a process perspective) ...................2
Article 2: Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change, why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73, 59-67. ...........................................................................................................................4
Session 2 – Understanding Reactions to Change .................................................................................6
Article 1: Stouten et al. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management
practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of management Annals, 12(2), 752-788. ......................6
Article 2: Ford et al. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2), 362-377. ...................................................................................................................9
Article 3: Choi, M. (2011). Employees' attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review.
Human Resource Management, 50(4), 479-500.Week 4 ................................................................ 11
Session 3 – Effective Change Management Practices and Change Leadership.................................... 13
Article 1: Oreg et al. (2009). Organisational justice in the context of organisational change.
Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65(4), 127-135........................................................................ 13
Article 2: Bommer et al. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of
transformational leader behaviour on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 26(7), 733-753. .................................................................................... 15
Article 3: Venus et al. (2019). Visions of change as visions of continuity. Academy of Management
Journal, 62(3), 667-690. ................................................................................................................ 17
Session 4 – ‘Managing’ Emergent Change and the Role of Middle Managers..................................... 18
Article 1: Heyden et al. (2017). Rethinking ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom up’ roles of top and middle
managers in organizational change: Implications for employee support. Journal of Management
Studies, 54: 961-985. ..................................................................................................................... 18
Article 2: Mowbray et al. (2015). An Integrative Review of Employee Voice: Identifying a Common
Conceptualization and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(3),
382-400. ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Session 5 – Culture Diagnosis & Change ............................................................................................ 23
Article 1: Cameron, K., & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework. Wiley - Chapter 3: The Competing Values Framework
..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Article 2: Cameron, K., & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework. Wiley - Chapter 5: Using the Framework to Diagnose
and Change Organizational Culture .............................................................................................. 25
,Session 1 – Introduction to Organizational Change and Change Management
Purpose of this session:
• An overview of the course and introduction to the field of change management
Article 1: Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. Asingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan (Chapter 1: Managing change: a process perspective)
Open systems theory provides a framework for thinking about organizations (and parts of
organizations) as a system of interrelated components that are embedded in, and strongly influenced
by, a larger system. In this state theory, the key to success is the quality of alignment.
Opposing this state theory (what), Miles and Snow (1984) argue that it is more productive to think of
it as a process that involves a quest for the best possible fit between the organization and its
environment and between the various internal components of the organization (how). Effective
leaders are those who set a direction for change and influence others to improve internal and external
alignment.
Four types that provide views of the change process:
• Teleological theories: organizations are purposeful and adaptive, and present change as an
unfolding cycle of goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and learning. However, not
necessarily in this order.
o Goals, and the steps taken to achieve goals, can be changed at the will of those involved in the
process.
o Members of a system have considerable freedom to construct change trajectories.
• Dialectical theories: focus on conflicting goals between different interest groups and explain
stability and change in terms of confrontation and the balance of power. Political perspective to
change: confrontation versus agreement between opposing entities.
o Often reactive sequences: conflicting goals lead subsequent events to challenge earlier events.
This emphasizes the importance of setting a viable direction and align those who are involved.
In theory, both teleological and dialectical theories suggest that members of a system have
considerable freedom to construct change trajectories and assert that it is possible for them to break
away from established routines. However, in practice is not easy to achieve. Due to self-reinforcing
sequences, it may be difficult to break away from established routines and intentionally move the
system towards redefined goals.
Reactive sequence: subsequent events challenge/oppose previous events. An unexpected event leads
to a separation of two paths (detour). Measures can bring the process back on track. Most likely when
different parties pursue their own interest (e.g., a strike or resistant decisions, i.e., dialectical
theories!).
o Minimize impact: by scanning their environment for threats and anticipating resistance or
responding quickly when others fail to support their actions. Anticipate how those affected by
a change might react to events (i.e., stakeholder analysis). Also, set a clear direction and align
all members to support the change.
Self-reinforcing sequences (positive feedback supports the direction of change) occur when a decision
or action produces positive feedback that reinforces earlier events and supports the direction of
,change. It undermines change managers’ flexibility and their ability to adapt to changing
circumstances). Self-reinforcing sequences may be beneficial in the short term but change managers
need to be alert to the possibility that they may draw them into a path that will deliver suboptimal
outcomes over the longer term. 3 pitfalls:
1. Increasing returns: a company stick with winning formula for too long and fails to respond to
opportunities and threats, e.g., Nokia.
2. Psychological commitment to past decisions: escalation of commitment and sunk cost fallacy
caused by change agent’s need to demonstrate capability and pressure for consistency, e.g., Direct
Banking.
3. Cognitive biases: confirmation bias and groupthink. For example, Expectations effects (self-
fulfilling prophecies) and self-serving attribution divert attention from important factors to
resistance (e.g., unexpected problems are blamed on resistance). See Ford.
Early steps in a particular direction can produce further movement in the same direction
(organizational path dependence: preformation -> path formation -> lock in, i.e., the options narrow
down). This process can constrain change leaders’ freedom to construct and manage an effective
change trajectory. Self-reinforcing sequences can undermine change managers’ flexibility and their
ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
• Minimize impact: For both reactive and self-reinforcing sequences: Change agent should step back
and observe what is going on, including their own and others’ behaviour, identify critical junctures
and subsequent patterns and maintain an awareness of and the freedom to adopt alternative
courses of action.
Please reflect on the following question(s):
Hayes introduces different process theories (teleological, dialectical, life cycle and evolutionary) which
all view change as a series of interconnected events, decisions, and actions. This raises the question
whether change is best described as a predetermined process that unfolds over time (in a prespecified
direction) or whether it is “constructed”, that is, the steps and goals are directed and changed by those
involved in the change.
, Article 2: Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change, why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59-67.
Successful change processes go through certain steps that may be lengthy but skipping steps will create
only an illusion of speed. Also, critical mistakes in any phase may be detrimental:
1. Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency (“make the status quo seem more dangerous
than the unknown”). However, Sense of urgency is not supported by research. In fact, it may lead
to fear. Similarly, extremely difficult, or impossible goals tend to be rejected (Stouten, 2018).
2. Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition (more than top management involvement is
required (see also Heyden et al, 2017), otherwise the opposition gathers itself together and stops
the change. In big companies, the coalition needs to grow to the 20 to 50 range. One goal is to
create a minimum level of trust and communication).
3. Lacking a vision (must be easily communicated, short and simple), see Venus et al.,
4. Under communicating the vision (both in words and deeds. Executives who communicate well
incorporate messages into their hour-by-hour activities and use all existing communication
channels to broadcast the vision. The guiding principle is simple: use every possible channel. Also,
walk the talk = TLB -> reduce cynicism, Bommer et al., 2005).
5. Not removing obstacles (this may be narrow job descriptions or performance appraisals systems.
If the blocker is a person, action is essential, both to empower others and to maintain the
credibility of the change effort).
6. Not creating short-term wins (people will give up). When it becomes clear to people that major
change will take a long time, urgency levels can drop. Commitments to produce short-term wins
help keep the urgency level up and force detailed analytical thinking that can clarify or revise
visions.
7. Declaring victory too soon (it kills momentum, and the tradition may take over again. Until changes
sink deeply into a company’s culture, a process that can take five to ten years, new approaches are
fragile and subject to regression). Rather change agents should celebrate wins and use the
credibility to tackle bigger challenges.
8. Not anchoring changes in the new culture (Until new behaviours are rooted in social norms and
shared values, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is removed.
Show how new approach have improved performance, and make sure the next generation TMT
personify the new vision).
